'Make in India' Single engined fighter

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Sep 2017 04:00

The SEF needs to be the 80% MMRCA sollution compared to the Rafale even if one were to assume that there is an operational rationale behind its acquisition. Would it be able to hit the 60-70% of the Total Acquisition Cost when compared to the numbers the MOD was looking at when they were running the math behind Rafale assembly in India? That is the question.

Judging unit acquisition cost based on an FMS and ME deal in general is tricky in the best of times. That was my point. Not so much in terms of the cost of the aircraft but since no breakdown by line-items is provided it is damn impossible to see how much support they intend on requiring. That information is only available in the actual contract. As to the cost comparison of the Rafale vs F-16 and Gripen, I guess the MOD would have good idea since they evaluated all three types on this metric as part of the MMRCA.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Sep 2017 06:04

US to push F-16 jets during Defence Secretary’s visit this month
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/eco ... 857941.ece

“Pushing the F-16 deal is definitely on top of his (Mattis’) agenda. This is his first visit to India as Defence Secretary and he will make the most of it,” an official told Business Line.

However, many within the government, especially in the Defence Ministry, are of the opinion that India will become a clearance ground for the F-16 planes that have become obsolete. But F-16 comes with a proven track record compared with Gripen E.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Sep 2017 06:05

JayS wrote:But I said exact same thing that you are saying just a sentence before the one that you bolded, no..??

Boss, I was just elaborating on your point a bit more. Hopefully you buy that excuse and I run back into my foxhole

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Sep 2017 06:10

U.S. backs sale of fighters to India
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 639764.ece

India has several concerns to be addressed before it moves ahead. “What is the depth of the technology transfer that these companies will offer to India? How will they help India’s aspirations for the domestic defence manufacturing capabilities? When they say they will make in India, what exactly will they make in India — as components are manufactured the world over, and mostly in America,” a source familiar with the Indian position told The Hindu . There are also questions about the ammunition supplies and American assurances in the event of a conflict with Pakistan.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Sep 2017 06:13

Surely Time is off the Essence
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/ ... sence.html

Technology sharing is of three types: Transfer of know-how or assembling of kits; transfer of source-codes; and of object-codes. The source and object codes are akin to ‘before’ and ‘after’ versions of a computer programme. While source codes are the core which gives out the creation of a technology, the object codes give out the sequencing of the programme which would help in re-programming a computer to specific needs. To be sure, no nation will give away the source codes. However, bargain could be made for object codes with the US, which, in itself, would be a leap in technology for the Indian industry, especially for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Mark-1A and the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Sep 2017 11:43

Yep,"proven" for the last century/decade what?!

We could say the same about the venerable MIG-21.Eminently proven,esp. the Bison variant which without detection,stuck its snout up more glamorous F-15's backsides not too long ago!

I was reading a long piece about the offer by SAAB for full comprehensive package for India for Gripen manufacture.State of art plant,robotics,et al.It reminded me of a conversation I had some years ago with a former CNS as to why we chose the HDW U-boats instead of the Swedish offer. His reply.The Swedes offered us everything,compared with the Germans technology,manufacturing-wise,The IN preferred the Swedish subs but there was a v.v.powerful player (manufacturer of a "small car"),who allegedly had his finger in the pie.The erst s they say is history.Nevertheless,the German subs have proven themselves,no issue there at all.A tragedy that the controversy over alleged kickbacks derailed the entire programme and the infrastructure built up at MDL was dumped,sold for scrap and the human skills wasted.We're still trying to master conventional sub production at MDL this time with a much delayed Scorpene programme.

Buying the F-16 would be the most retrogade step ever taken by the GOI/MOD in its entire history. NS must resist the pressure which will fall upon her.When the entire world is retiring the aircraft,India should not be like scavengers rushing to the dumpster!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Sep 2017 12:11

Rakesh wrote:Surely Time is off the Essence
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/ ... sence.html

Technology sharing is of three types: Transfer of know-how or assembling of kits; transfer of source-codes; and of object-codes. The source and object codes are akin to ‘before’ and ‘after’ versions of a computer programme. While source codes are the core which gives out the creation of a technology, the object codes give out the sequencing of the programme which would help in re-programming a computer to specific needs. To be sure, no nation will give away the source codes. However, bargain could be made for object codes with the US, which, in itself, would be a leap in technology for the Indian industry, especially for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Mark-1A and the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

Object code is like a binary thing you wont still know what runs behind those binary till you get the source and vet it yourself , its not difficult to put in a kill switch specially when these codes would be getting updates through out the life any one can easily slip in unintended stuff.

In any case getting the source or object code wont help LCA or AMACA program , it is just to make sure we have a complete independence in what we are buying and can reprogram thing the way we want it to be and integrate Indian stuff.

I wonder of single engine would have requirement for hardwiring it for nuclear role and if swedes and US would oblige ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Sep 2017 21:54

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 16 Sep 2017 05:19

X-post from the LCA News & Discussion thread...

HAL faces order crunch
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 653964.ece

If private hardware suppliers keep up the pace and deliver the LCA’s main systems, HAL can deliver 24 of the light fighters in a year, he said.

Unless I read this wrong, I am assuming the HAL chief means 24 starting from 2018 onwards. I am using that as a starting point for Tejas production. Going by that yardstick - anyone, please correct me if I am wrong - 24 aircraft x 5 years = 120 aircraft or basically 120 aircraft delivered by the end of 2022. Since we are only in the RFI stage of the SE contract and by the time the factory is done and planes are churning out (F-Solah or Gripen E), it will be around the same time frame if not longer. With each passing day, the SE deal becomes less attractive. I hope the GOI and the IAF see it as well.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 16 Sep 2017 05:34

Austin wrote: I wonder of single engine would have requirement for hardwiring it for nuclear role and if swedes and US would oblige ?

How did the Pakis and the Israelis do it? It was common knowledge about the Israelis doing it some 30 odd years ago

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 19 Sep 2017 05:50

New Fighter Deal: Picking up Pace, and Cronies
https://newsclick.in/new-fighter-deal-p ... nd-cronies

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 19 Sep 2017 10:41

Rakesh wrote:X-post from the LCA News & Discussion thread...

HAL faces order crunch
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 653964.ece

If private hardware suppliers keep up the pace and deliver the LCA’s main systems, HAL can deliver 24 of the light fighters in a year, he said.
Unless I read this wrong, I am assuming the HAL chief means 24 starting from 2018 onwards. I am using that as a starting point for Tejas production. Going by that yardstick - anyone, please correct me if I am wrong - 24 aircraft x 5 years = 120 aircraft or basically 120 aircraft delivered by the end of 2022. Since we are only in the RFI stage of the SE contract and by the time the factory is done and planes are churning out (F-Solah or Gripen E), it will be around the same time frame if not longer. With each passing day, the SE deal becomes less attractive. I hope the GOI and the IAF see it as well.

Rakesh, TSR has been saying this since two years - 25/yr rate is possible if HAL finds tier-1 suppliers. I have been trying to point that out since long in this thread. People simply chose to ignore, since its coming from HAL. A lot has happened in two years. HAL is not still at their intended level of outsourcing. But it always has been very much possible to jack up production to 25/yr or even 32/yr if the right kind of push was given. Immediate requirement for IAF is just a farce to push SE MII tender. Had it been the real reason we would have seen the contract already signed. Clearly no one seems in hurry. By the time contract is signed it would be too little too late.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Sep 2017 12:10

HAL is kiteflying! It is abso bullsh*t to say that HAL is bereft of orders.It is a blatant falsehood meant to derail the SE fighter acquisition,where HAL will be left out of the picture for this programme. One presumes that it is talking only of fixed wingaircraft as the helo deck appears to be choc-a-bloc of orders for ALHs,LCHs,with possibilities of the HAL developed LUH,apart from the KA-226, and med. helo development too.Even here ,prod. rates ,must be doubled.

Consider the foll: HAL has 40+ another 40-80 LCAs on order,officially,with the MK-2 dev. a future 120+ possibility.Total LCAs if built quickly could amt.
to anything between 200-300 including possible exports given its low cost.Various chiefs have said that "they would buy as much LCAs as HAL could build",well knowing that HAL was never intending to make many LCAs,hoping instead for another firang bird to put together with screwdrivers.Far easier for the friang entity to do all the bull work,from infrastructure planning and building,aircraft plans/designs,software,hardware,components,engine,weapons,manuals,you name it.HAL don't need to stir a finger,they'll love it unlike having to provide everything of the former for the LCA,which has been put together in a "besposke"manner,not meant for mass production. !

Now that the pvt. sector has successfully lobbied the GOI,a welcome dev. considering the poor performance of some DPSUs,HAL is jumping up and down like a cat on a hot tin roof,caterwauling that it hasn't anything to eat. Rubbish! The programme to upgrade over 200+ MKIs is on the cards,turning them into "Super Sukhois",BMos capable and armed with more advanced engines,radars,weapons,etc.This programme will take a decade at least to complete if only 20 are upgraded/yr! OK,that keeps nasik busy.Then there is also the 120 Jag upgrades,long in the tooth in executing (why?).which gives the BLR unit considerable work for at least 5-6 yrs.Add the 120 LCAs, the Q that beggars us is whether HAL will be able to finish these programmes alone on time! If HAL's SOS includes the delayed sealing of these deals too,then may I be forgiven for castigating it.I never added the armed Hawk or its new basic trainerto the list and perhaps the IJT too? If HAL shows alacrity and a positive attitude towards the LCA production and timely delivery,I am sure that the GOI will suitably reward it. The statement put out is meant to confuse the new DM who will have to take the call on many critical issues v.quickly.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 19 Sep 2017 13:09

Philip wrote:HAL is kiteflying! It is abso bullsh*t to say that HAL is bereft of orders.It is a blatant falsehood meant to derail the SE fighter acquisition,where HAL will be left out of the picture for this programme.

Please, Philip saar. when TSR says this, he means by actual written contract. Kindly list down all the contracts HAL has which are written on paper already. 'Almost assured' or 'CCS approval' or 'IAF assurance' does not make a cut here. He has every right to push for what's good for HAL. That's his bloody job. And Su-30 line getting idle is a very valid concern. FGFA is a paper plane still and god knows when it will come if it will come at all. And HAL has invested separately in Su-30 MRO already. So its not like they can simply absorb all the people from Assembly and MFG to MRO now. Also moving people around within HAL is also not very easy, from what I hear, due to various restrictions and also skillsets need to be matched too. If HAL starts paying people who are sitting idle, you will be among the people who want to skin HAL management alive for being utterly inefficient. Letting go skilled manpower is also not a very good option.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Sep 2017 13:23

Accepted.Read my last line.The HAL spokesperson could've been a little more elaborate in his statement,requesting early conclusion of already approved projects.However,these are in the known domain,projects already approved for HAL and its performance.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 532355.ece
Xcpts:Air Force likely to get 123 LCA Tejas by 2024-25
Last November the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) had given initial clearance for 83 aircraft in the Mk-1A configuration with specific improvements sought by the IAF.

Mr. Raju said that about 45 improvements have been implemented in the 1A and HAL has already floated a tender for the Advanced Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar and Self-Protection Jammer (SPJ).

On the timeline for the development of the 1A, Mr. Raju said that the tender would be opened by March end after which technical evaluation and commercial negotiations would be held. “We will be able to prove it on the 1A by 2018 and start producing by 2019,” he observed.

Apart from the development, the induction is also delayed by the low production rate of eight aircraft per year. The government has recently given sanction for setting another assembly to increase production rate to 16 per year.

http://thediplomat.com/2017/08/indias-l ... -schedule/
India’s Light Combat Aircraft Well Behind Schedule
India’s defense industry is behind schedule in delivering the country’s first indigenous fighter jet.
By Franz-Stefan Gady
August 10, 2017

India’s defense industry is behind schedule in delivering the country’s first indigenous fighter jet.
By Franz-Stefan Gady
August 10, 2017

India’s state-owned aircraft maker Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) continues to fall behind schedule in delivering the country’s first domestically designed and produced light fighter aircraft, the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), according to information released by India’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) last week.

HAL so far has only delivered four out of 40 Tejas Mark-I LCA ordered by the Indian Air Force in 2005.
*(Ordered in 2005!)

Originally, all 40 aircraft were expected to be delivered by 2018. As of this month, HAL only has 12 additional fighter jets under production. HAL has so far not yet been able to meet the target of eight serially-produced aircraft per year, although it has obtained permission from the Indian government to ramp up production to 16 LCAs per annum in March 2017.
*(Wonderful performance and it says it has no work!)

Senior Indian military leadership has been aware of delays in the Tejas program for some time. “We are ready to take more — 120 [fighters], six squadrons of Tejas… We are ready to take it as soon as they [HAL] can provide it. That means they have to ramp up the production rate, which is running behind schedule… But we will take all 120,” then-IAF Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha said in 2015.
*(Said 2 years ago,willing tpo take 120 aircraft)

The first-generation Mark-I variant of the Tejas is suffering from a number of technical shortfalls, according to an Indian government report, which purportedly are being addressed. As I reported previously, the IAF abandoned “plans to develop an upgraded Mark-II Tejas LCA and instead will field an improved Mark-I Tejas LCA — dubbed Tejas Mark-IA — in which the technical problems of the Mark-I version outlined in the May 2015 government report will be addressed.” The report was published by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India — the Indian government’s principal oversight body.

Overall, the Indian Air Force plans to induct a total of 123 Tejas Mark-IA aircraft, next to 40 Mark-Is. In November 2016, the Indian MoD approved the purchase of a first batch of 83 Mark-IA Tejas fighter jets fitted with new electronic warfare capabilities, a new onboard radar system, and increased internal-fuel capacity.

The Tejas LCA, a supersonic, single-seat, single-engine multirole light fighter aircraft, has been under development by the Aeronautical Development Agency in cooperation with Indian state-owned military aircraft maker Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) since 1983. The Tejas is slated to replace the IAF’s aging fleet of MiG-21 and MiG-23 aircraft.

Last month, it was revealed that the new aircraft has completed integration of the I-Derby beyond-visual-range (BVR) air-to-air missile, boosting the Tejas’ aerial combat capabilities.The new missile, fitted with a fire-and-forget guidance system, has an estimated range of over 50 kilometers and an estimated speed of Mach 4. The IAF is also mulling procuring an extended-range variant of the I-Derby with a range of up to 100 kilometers.

The first four Tejas LCAs have been inducted into the Flying Tigers 45 LCA squadron based in Sulur, in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu in the south of the country. They will primarily serve as training aircraft.

PS:Big Q,still unanswered.Has the LCA completed its gun-firing tests,or has it decided that it is too dangerous (for HAL) and has dropped the same,perhaps will appear on the next batches!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 19 Sep 2017 14:52

HAL will have its hands full with the MKI upgrades, LCA, the helicopters. If they have excess skilled manpower, it's good news for private companies who have a pool to source from.

They have what—120+ LCAs to deliver. Assuming (and that's a big if) they deliver 20/year, that's six years at full capacity before upgrades and if they've done a good job, follow-on orders. Show some innovative thinking—with that 'deep license' on MKIs, refashion that 3G+ platform into a lower operating cost workhorse.

IMHO, HAL is not saying anything different than the OFBs: they want a continuing monopoly on ac as lead integrator. It's time to stop thinking of enterprises centered on employee welfare above all. Customers must come first and if you do that, the rest follows.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Sep 2017 23:28

Philip wrote:
http://thediplomat.com/2017/08/indias-l ... -schedule/
India’s Light Combat Aircraft Well Behind Schedule
India’s defense industry is behind schedule in delivering the country’s first indigenous fighter jet.
By Franz-Stefan Gady
August 10, 2017
India’s defense industry is behind schedule in delivering the country’s first indigenous fighter jet.
By Franz-Stefan Gady
August 10, 2017

India’s state-owned aircraft maker Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) continues to fall behind schedule in delivering the country’s first domestically designed and produced light fighter aircraft, the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), according to information released by India’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) last week.

HAL so far has only delivered four out of 40 Tejas Mark-I LCA ordered by the Indian Air Force in 2005.

Originally, all 40 aircraft were expected to be delivered by 2018. As of this month, HAL only has 12 additional fighter jets under production. HAL has so far not yet been able to meet the target of eight serially-produced aircraft per year, although it has obtained permission from the Indian government to ramp up production to 16 LCAs per annum in March 2017.

Senior Indian military leadership has been aware of delays in the Tejas program for some time. “We are ready to take more — 120 [fighters], six squadrons of Tejas… We are ready to take it as soon as they [HAL] can provide it. That means they have to ramp up the production rate, which is running behind schedule… But we will take all 120,” then-IAF Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha said in 2015.

The first-generation Mark-I variant of the Tejas is suffering from a number of technical shortfalls, according to an Indian government report, which purportedly are being addressed. As I reported previously, the IAF abandoned “plans to develop an upgraded Mark-II Tejas LCA and instead will field an improved Mark-I Tejas LCA — dubbed Tejas Mark-IA — in which the technical problems of the Mark-I version outlined in the May 2015 government report will be addressed.” The report was published by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India — the Indian government’s principal oversight body.

Overall, the Indian Air Force plans to induct a total of 123 Tejas Mark-IA aircraft, next to 40 Mark-Is. In November 2016, the Indian MoD approved the purchase of a first batch of 83 Mark-IA Tejas fighter jets fitted with new electronic warfare capabilities, a new onboard radar system, and increased internal-fuel capacity.

The Tejas LCA, a supersonic, single-seat, single-engine multirole light fighter aircraft, has been under development by the Aeronautical Development Agency in cooperation with Indian state-owned military aircraft maker Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) since 1983. The Tejas is slated to replace the IAF’s aging fleet of MiG-21 and MiG-23 aircraft.

Last month, it was revealed that the new aircraft has completed integration of the I-Derby beyond-visual-range (BVR) air-to-air missile, boosting the Tejas’ aerial combat capabilities.The new missile, fitted with a fire-and-forget guidance system, has an estimated range of over 50 kilometers and an estimated speed of Mach 4. The IAF is also mulling procuring an extended-range variant of the I-Derby with a range of up to 100 kilometers.

The first four Tejas LCAs have been inducted into the Flying Tigers 45 LCA squadron based in Sulur, in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu in the south of the country. They will primarily serve as training aircraft.

Full of mistakes and tiring drivel, such as the date of the start of the concept of the LCA as the development start date, the number of Tejas Mk1s delivered to the IAF (5 not 4), the basing of the squadron (currently still in Bangalore, not Sulur) and even the number of Mk1As planned (83, not 123). Not to mention the order date being given as 2005, but HAL couldn't start production of a serial variant till the type had achieved IOC and the SOP for that was finalized.

Franz Stephan Gady added to the list of article writers who don't do adequate research and then post very inaccurate articles. Articles that then get quoted by people with limited understanding of the program or by those with an ulterior agenda.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Sep 2017 23:40

And now this comedy. The quoted unnamed "Indian official" seriously have some gall to suggest that the Russians need to be "compensated" if the FGFA doesn't go through!! The MiG-35 being displayed still doesn't have an AESA and this guy already talks about it like its available on the type already. Akin to an HAL official talking about Tejas being AESA equipped, because erm, it'll happen eventually, wont it?

Russia pitches MiG-35 to India as FGFA project falters

As the contest to supply a new fighter aircraft to the Indian Air Force (IAF) heats up, the MiG-35 has emerged as a viable candidate.

India is supposedly seeking about 220 single-engine fighters to replace 11 squadrons of MiG-21/27s that entered service in the 1990s. (so how does the MiG-35 morph into a single engine fighter?!)

Rosoboronexport is believed to have offered a licensed production deal for the twin-engine MiG-35 that would compensate for the IAF’s reluctance to proceed with the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project.

At the MAKS 2017 airshow in July, Ilya Tarasenko, director general of Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG, said: “We are actively working with the IAF in order to win the tender.” Russia has committed to a 40-year maintenance and upgrade contract to preclude the support issues that have arisen in the past with Russian aircraft in service with the IAF. Meanwhile, also at MAKS, Sergei Chemezov, CEO of the Rostec State Corporation, told reporters that a decision on the design and development of the FGFA would be made in the “nearest future.” He did not provide a timeline for the project, a version of Russia’s Sukhoi T-50, which has been under discussion between the two countries for the past decade.

According to an Indian defense official, “The MiG-35 is 25 percent cheaper [than rival candidates for the IAF requirement]; has an AESA radar; has commonality with the fleet; and being in the light to medium category enables it to land in the same airfields that the [indigenous] Light Combat Aircraft does. If the FGFA does not go through, Russia will have to be compensated, and this is the only contract left at the moment.” (unbelievably wonky logic! Why not work to get more Tejas fighters to fly on the airfields that the Tejas fighters were meant to fly from?!! Instead of going scouting the world for a new assembly line with all the attendant issues that will bring, not to mention the headache of a new type?!!)

If the MiG-35 is chosen, it would likely be built at the Nashik facility of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL). Spare capacity will soon be available there, when work on Su-30MKI upgrades for the IAF is completed. (why not use that facility to build more Tejas Mk2 fighters? Too much work to support and develop an indigenous fighter program? Why bother, let someone else do the hard work and we'll just focus on flying something almost readymade ?!)

India had previously indicated that the single-engine fighter should be built by a non-state owned company that would be selected as partner by the fighter supplier under the “Make In India” policy. But acting defense minister Arun Jaitley said last month while inaugurating HAL’s Light Combat Helicopter facility: “Public-sector work culture and performance have the highest standards of professionalism,” making it clear that HAL was not ruled out of the fighter contest. (India’s first woman defense minister, former commerce minister Nirmala Sitharaman, took over from Jaitley this week and is thought to be like-minded).

Lockheed Martin is expected to bid the F-16 Block 70 for the fighter contest. “The IAF needs a company that can maintain, repair and upgrade without somebody pulling the plug,” Randall L. Howard, business development head for Lockheed Martin, told AIN. “We take a long-term view and have multiple projects in India. We do not look at India as a market, but a partnership,” he added. The 50th C-130J Super Hercules empennage assembly is due for delivery by joint venture Tata Lockheed Martin Aerostructures on September 16.

Abhay Paranjape, director of business development for Lockheed Martin in India, told AIN that following its agreement with Tata Advanced Systems to produce the F-16 Block 70 in India, his company had already identified 60 companies in India that it will shortlist to make parts for the fighter. “The U.S. administration is in full support of moving the F-16 production line to India…this will create jobs in both countries,” he added. He also said that Lockheed Martin is encouraging the two governments “to have a conversation” for future cooperation on the F-35 stealth fighter.

Saab is expected to bid the Gripen E. Transfer of technology remains a thorny issue. The Swedish company and the Adani Group announced “a collaboration on aerospace and defense” on September 4. “Saab is willing to transfer state-of-the-art technology and skills. We will focus on the capability that is critical for true indigenization including design, system integration, maintenance and upgrade,” said Gautam Adani, chairman of the Adani Group. The Indian conglomerate is venturing into the defense arena for the first time with the Saab agreement. However, Kurt Ove Håkan Buskhe, the president and CEO of the Saab Group told AIN: “Most design and integration uses avionics software and onboard computer systems, and that is something we fully control.”

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 20 Sep 2017 00:07

I have a feeling that some kind of mig-29upg, mig-29k, mig35 production line will come to India along with rd-33mk engine tech. IMO - worth the money we pay - maybe we pay $1 billion dollars for getting the engine/production tech/support.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Sep 2017 01:30

But, but, but ....

Exclusive: U.S. defense firms want control over tech in Make-in-India plan

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - U.S. defense firms offering to set up production lines in India to win deals worth billions of dollars want stronger assurances they won’t have to part with proprietary technology, according to a business lobby group’s letter to India’s defense minister.

These companies are also saying they shouldn’t be held liable for defects in products manufactured in collaboration with local partners under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Make-in-India’s drive to build a military industrial base.

...

The US-India Business Council (USIBC) wrote to India’s defense minister last month seeking a guarantee that U.S. firms would retain control over sensitive technology - even as joint venture junior partners.

“Control of proprietary technologies is a major consideration for all companies exploring public and private defense partnerships,” the business lobby, which represents 400 firms, said in the Aug. 3 letter, reviewed by Reuters and previously unreported.

“To allow foreign OEMs to provide the most advanced technologies, the partnership arrangement between an Indian owned ‘strategic partner’ company and a foreign OEM needs to provide an opportunity for the foreign OEM to retain control over its proprietary technology,” it said, noting this wasn’t explicit in the policy document.

...

Benjamin Schwartz, USIBC’s director for defense and aerospace, said the new Indian policy offered a roadmap for establishing partnerships between U.S. and Indian companies, but it raised some questions for the firms.

He said he was not in a position to name those companies concerned by the Indian policy, but there was a “general desire to see increased clarity” on several aspects, including the control of proprietary technologies.

QUALITY ISSUES

The USIBC also opposed a clause in the new rules that held foreign firms jointly responsible for the quality of the platforms provided to the military, saying legal liability is a significant factor in business decisions.

“We recommend the MoD (Ministry of Defence) affirm that foreign OEMs will not be liable for defects outside their company’s control,” the USIBC said.

....

Only state-run Hindustan Aeronautics (HIAE.NS) Ltd had made planes under license, while some private players were starting from scratch, having never built even an aircraft component. Kumar (head of Boeing-India) said he could not find a single example worldwide of a private enterprise with limited experience building out a plane under transfer of technology.

“Look at Turkey, look at Japan, look at Brazil - look at multiple countries. In all cases there is a fine balancing act of co-opting the capabilities of both public and private enterprise,” Kumar said at a conference organized by the Centre for Air Power Studies, a think-tank of the Indian air force.
....

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 20 Sep 2017 03:47

^^^Looks like Pratyush Kumar wants to co-opt 'state' enterprises as a way of both lubricating the resistance: getting the HAL and PSU unions on Boeing's side and then using them as fall guys if things go wrong. Heck, it's a great strategy to do an end run around LM which is ahead because after all, it is a SE competition. Cunning.

The more I look at the SE, MII seems more and more a way to employ non-farm and low level IT types who are going to be redundant due to H1B and automation. The SE is not about 'ToT'. It is about jobs from what we used to call 'backward linkages' in in the 1960/70s and today we call the 'ecosystem'. The SMEs.

If I were King, I'd let the LMs and Boeings et al, own 100% of their Indian ops, take 100% responsibility for product, require 90% + of product content to be sourced locally by year 6 and insist on employing Indian citizens for 100% of staff below the 1st two rungs—ensuring that no US-based (or elsewhere) people costs were allocated as overhead to ac MII.

They can still make a buck and no excuses for screwing up. US must make good on DTTI for engine tech on the F-414

In parallel, iterate the LCA: bigger and more capable. Yeah!, figure it out. Jump start the AMCA leveraging the LCA for maximum commonality.

Forget the FGFA. Extend the AMCA platform to encompass that role.

Exit the King

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 20 Sep 2017 04:11

V_Raman wrote:I have a feeling that some kind of mig-29upg, mig-29k, mig35 production line will come to India along with rd-33mk engine tech. IMO - worth the money we pay - maybe we pay $1 billion dollars for getting the engine/production tech/support.

I am surprised Natasha lobby is not thinking of removing one engine from the MIG29 call it Mig 17.5 and pitch it for the single engine fighter contract.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 20 Sep 2017 04:46

Vips wrote:
V_Raman wrote:I have a feeling that some kind of mig-29upg, mig-29k, mig35 production line will come to India along with rd-33mk engine tech. IMO - worth the money we pay - maybe we pay $1 billion dollars for getting the engine/production tech/support.
I am surprised Natasha lobby is not thinking of removing one engine from the MIG29 call it Mig 17.5 and pitch it for the single engine fighter contract.

I said that first. Moreover, the second engine was a 'redundancy feature' for the first which was very likely to fail. IOW, 2 for the advertised price of 1 or in reality 0 for the price of one

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Sep 2017 09:08

Looks like the US mfg want to not even certify screwdriver assembly.
Just hand over money,

At this rate opening second fab for LCA is best option.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 20 Sep 2017 09:50

If employment and MII was such a concern then why haven't we forced Airbus to setup a line in India for A320 like China has done. We have ordered enough aircraft to produce at one every week.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Sep 2017 10:18

Indranil wrote:But, but, but ....

Exclusive: U.S. defense firms want control over tech in Make-in-India plan

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - U.S. defense firms offering to set up production lines in India to win deals worth billions of dollars want stronger assurances they won’t have to part with proprietary technology, according to a business lobby group’s letter to India’s defense minister.

These companies are also saying they shouldn’t be held liable for defects in products manufactured in collaboration with local partners under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Make-in-India’s drive to build a military industrial base.

Very nice find Indranil. Excellent!

A number of questions come to mind;

1) Does the US really want to win this deal? It is a foregone conclusion that they were not going to part with the engine and radar tech, why ask for an assurance? India is not expecting to get the tech anyway. As this rate, they might as well hand the competition to Saab. Regardless, they will win either way. Key components of the Gripen E is of American origin...with the GE F414 engine being one.

2) With demands like this, what kind of strategic partnership is this? Is this an alliance or we are just a natural convergence, because we have a common enemy? Are we to be just an "extension arm" of American diplomacy to be used against China? So now Pivot to Asia is basically we still want to be King, even though we are $20+ trillion (and growing) in debt. The rest of us are serfs like South Korea, Taiwan, Phillipines, Japan and now India?

3) Since we are to be exporting F-16s to other countries from the production line, who is certifying the product? LM or Tata-HAL? Asking for not to be held liable is even more asinine than asking for assurances for not parting with proprietary technology. That is like saying Daimler AG (which owns Benz) cannot certify any Indian-made Mercedes. . . .wait for it. . . .because it is made in Pune, Maharashtra. Who comes up with these gems?

Eagerly awating for the PR spin from Tier 1 BR Industry certified experts. Thank you Marten for that term

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Sep 2017 10:31

F-16 vs Gripen: Which Fighter Jet Will Nirmala Choose Under Make-in-India?
http://www.news18.com/news/india/f16-vs ... 22511.html

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Sep 2017 10:35

Saab launches Arexis electronic warfare suite for Gripen E/F
http://quwa.org/2017/09/18/saab-launche ... gripen-ef/

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Sep 2017 11:33

They say you can only RENT US Military Equipment you dont OWN it ,it is still owned and monitored by US T&C apply !

nash · Post by **nash** » 20 Sep 2017 12:12

In one or two month, RFI will be issued, it would be really interesting, though my wishful thinking, if it is also send to HAL as a OEM of LCA. SP can be Adani or tata.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Sep 2017 12:33

Anything "given" by the US comes with permanent strings attached.Intrusive inspections,etc.,plus the inability to get post acquisition logistic/spares support indigenously,as all entities supporting the bird will ultimately have a US boss.

Coming back to the Ru SE dev.,nothing developed so far but MIG-which has provided us with hundreds of Sov. and desi built SE fighters which we've happily operated for nigh on 50+ yrs.,have a stealth design in the works (some pics have appeared) which mat appear by 2020+. This however may be a case of "too late the hero" for the export market unless the price is around $25/30M. Cheaper Sino-Pak JF-17s,Gripens,new MIG-29s are dominating this market. MIG-29s are still being built and upgraded due to their low cost,despite the arrival of the MIG-35,which with its AESA radar,new TVC engines,etc.,will cost about $10M more.

The req. for the MIG-35 if it ever goes through,would be augmenting the med. aircraft inventory since the Rafale is obscenely expensive at $200M a pop.MIG-35s should not come in at more than $45-50M max. In fact the M2K upgrade/aircraft was also an obscene $2.5B for 50+ aircraft,when compared with just under $1B for upgrading all 67 MIG-29s! There is a strong chance that this may happen,not as "compensation" for any delay in sealing the FGFA deal as a media report has described it,but out of sheer common sense-augmenting numbers and capability in the most cost-effective manner. Our former CoAS did remark that there was also a need for at least 120 med. sized aircraft apart from the SE fighter.

HAL well knows that it is being sidelined for the SE deal and its inherent inability to develop the LCA ,lacking the design,engineering and production skills of major aircraft manufacturers,can't even build the paltry no. of 12 /yr ,one a month.No wonder the GOI and IAF have opted for another SE light fighter.had I been the head honcho of HAL,I would've put on hold all other lesser projects such as the BT,etc., and concentrated 24 X 7 the entire weight of the BLR establishment and whatever other resources were needed from the other manufacturing units,in developing the LCA to its expected operational std. and rolling out at least one sqd. of LCAs/yr. Establishing at least two LCA prod. units with a min. of 16-20 aircraft/yr would've avoided the need for an SE fighter altogether. Either HAL's incompetence or there is a deliberate plot to buy another firang fighter,tx. to vested interests,explains the LCA fiasco.

The big Q is how much the GOI will allot for the IAF's ambitions. The stand-off with the Chinese at Doklam has seen a demand from the IA to rapidly augment gaps in its overall inventory,even the light tank req.,anti-air arty/SAMs,thousands of various types of arty pieces,land attack missiles,attach and utility helos med/light,plus the creation of the planned extra MSFs.Coupled with border road infrastructure,the IA is going to get the bulk of the budget since losing any territory on the ground to the Chins would be an unmitigated disaster for any govt. let alone that of Mr.Modi ,seen as India's toughest PM available at the current time.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Sep 2017 13:26

Saurav Jha‏ @SJha1618 3m3 minutes ago

Look, its clear that some people want to dump the F-16 on India just as our own 4th gen fighter is getting up to speed.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 20 Sep 2017 13:45

USA tried this trick when Akash was being operationalized - they tried to offer Patriot!

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 20 Sep 2017 14:40

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^Looks like Pratyush Kumar wants to co-opt 'state' enterprises as a way of both lubricating the resistance: getting the HAL and PSU unions on Boeing's side and then using them as fall guys if things go wrong. Heck, it's a great strategy to do an end run around LM which is ahead because after all, it is a SE competition. Cunning.

The more I look at the SE, MII seems more and more a way to employ non-farm and low level IT types who are going to be redundant due to H1B and automation. The SE is not about 'ToT'. It is about jobs from what we used to call 'backward linkages' in in the 1960/70s and today we call the 'ecosystem'. The SMEs.

If I were King, I'd let the LMs and Boeings et al, own 100% of their Indian ops, take 100% responsibility for product, require 90% + of product content to be sourced locally by year 6 and insist on employing Indian citizens for 100% of staff below the 1st two rungs—ensuring that no US-based (or elsewhere) people costs were allocated as overhead to ac MII.

They can still make a buck and no excuses for screwing up. US must make good on DTTI for engine tech on the F-414

In parallel, iterate the LCA: bigger and more capable. Yeah!, figure it out. Jump start the AMCA leveraging the LCA for maximum commonality.

Forget the FGFA. Extend the AMCA platform to encompass that role.

Exit the King

Spoken like a true king. This is actually a better solution if IAF decides to select F-16 or gripen.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 20 Sep 2017 14:45

Austin wrote:Saurav Jha‏ @SJha1618 3m3 minutes ago

Look, its clear that some people want to dump the F-16 on India just as our own 4th gen fighter is getting up to speed.

What I m saying from the beginning.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 20 Sep 2017 15:08

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^Looks like Pratyush Kumar wants to co-opt 'state' enterprises as a way of both lubricating the resistance: getting the HAL and PSU unions on Boeing's side and then using them as fall guys if things go wrong. Heck, it's a great strategy to do an end run around LM which is ahead because after all, it is a SE competition. Cunning.

The more I look at the SE, MII seems more and more a way to employ non-farm and low level IT types who are going to be redundant due to H1B and automation. The SE is not about 'ToT'. It is about jobs from what we used to call 'backward linkages' in in the 1960/70s and today we call the 'ecosystem'. The SMEs.

If I were King, I'd let the LMs and Boeings et al, own 100% of their Indian ops, take 100% responsibility for product, require 90% + of product content to be sourced locally by year 6 and insist on employing Indian citizens for 100% of staff below the 1st two rungs—ensuring that no US-based (or elsewhere) people costs were allocated as overhead to ac MII.

They can still make a buck and no excuses for screwing up. US must make good on DTTI for engine tech on the F-414

In parallel, iterate the LCA: bigger and more capable. Yeah!, figure it out. Jump start the AMCA leveraging the LCA for maximum commonality.

Forget the FGFA. Extend the AMCA platform to encompass that role.

Exit the King

Not a bad idea if all that we are happy with learning is screwdrivergiri out of such endeavours, and nothing else. And the aim is to give jobs to an insignificant number of people. But let me tell you this - no OEM will accept these conditions. They will simply show middle finger.

Also its impractical to ask for or expect 90% part sourcing locally. That would make the program unviable economically. If there were a couple of hundred F-16s to be imported over and above IAF's order, that option might have made sense. But since there is nothing of that sort happening, and unless we want to give free F-16s to bakis, we aint importing any significant number of F16 (more like no F16 at all). This condition for 6th year is too little too late by any standard. Who in their right mind will set up shop in India for part mfg for remaining 20-30 jets post 6th year...?? MRO requirement is too far away to justify any future work. There will be a big lull period in between. Take any perspective you may, this SE MII program is a dud by any angle.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Sep 2017 15:24

No tech transfer for solah. Good. Add to it the comment from the COAS about ownership of IP. I am combined that this make in India compitition will be won by LCA. As we own all the IP. Niether grippen nor solah will give up on IP.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 20 Sep 2017 16:44

^^^LM has stated that by the 7th year, it expects to roll out a near completely 'locally sourced' F-16. So 90% by year 6 is not a stretch. We are not going to get IP from them or anyone else so it makes sense to let them bear 100% of the investment cost in exchange for 100% ownership and responsibility. All potential vendors have signaled workforce training and local ecosystem build-up is very much on the table so insisting on maximum local employment is not a weird idea.

It is worth repeating that SE (if it happens) is about jobs for Indians who wont fit into the IT/Hi Tech sectors. That is the crux of MII—not IP or the fabled 'tot' .

For IP, there is no alternative to LCA and by extension AMCA. FGFA is Russian screwdrivership and Make in Russia.

On the issue of extended middle fingers and other members, one of the very basic tenets of negotiation is to not argue the opponent's case. By conceding items at the outset, you paint yourself into a corner. By starting with a maximalist position, you create space to horse-trade. But enough! Everyone knows this as deal negotiation 101.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 20 Sep 2017 17:17

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^LM has stated that by the 7th year, it expects to roll out a near completely 'locally sourced' F-16. So 90% by year 6 is not a stretch. We are not going to get IP from them or anyone else so it makes sense to let them bear 100% of the investment cost in exchange for 100% ownership and responsibility. All potential vendors have signaled workforce training and local ecosystem build-up is very much on the table so insisting on maximum local employment is not a weird idea.

It is worth repeating that SE (if it happens) is about jobs for Indians who wont fit into the IT/Hi Tech sectors. That is the crux of MII—not IP or the fabled 'tot' .

For IP, there is no alternative to LCA and by extension AMCA. FGFA is Russian screwdrivership and Make in Russia.

On the issue of extended middle fingers and other members, one of the very basic tenets of negotiation is to not argue the opponent's case. By conceding items at the outset, you paint yourself into a corner. By starting with a maximalist position, you create space to horse-trade. But enough! Everyone knows this as deal negotiation 101.

Sirji, I have the same question which Indranil has asked many times. How will assembling 100 F-16s create more jobs than manufacturing 100 LCAs? Hence, how can SE be about jobs?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Sep 2017 17:34

The amount of time and effort put in to creating a new line for an old imported fighter will easliy allow for an increase in production rates for LCA. To an extent that the gap in fighter.numbera can be filled relatively quickly.

The HAL chief is on record that an investment of 1600 ces will allow him to double the production of LCA.

So why not invest that money at HAL only.